SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

-- Larry

TangoMan wrote:
(I'm looking for info, links and criticism to strengthen the case of SPS vs.
terrestrial solar and wind power that I present below so I appeal to the
resident experts who frequent this group.

I've just finished a debate on this over at the SSI Yahoo!Group. Rather than
do this again I'd rather have a thread of debate that I can direct
environmentalists to.

I acknowledge that limited solar/wind implementation is beneficial but the
environmentalist position I'm arguing against is total solar/wind/hydrogen
and no electrical grid.

For those who have the stamina to digest this tome, I'd appreciate comments
on how to strengthen the case for SPS.)

Thanks, TangoMan

snippitites est

very interessting article - thank you .. !

however:

green != luddite

servus

markus

"Larry Gales" wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.56.0311222322220.2968@homecomps...
I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

-- Larry

I'm probably catching some environmentalists in a big net that I don't mean
to catch.

Even the fellow I had the debate with doesn't deserve the frustration I'm
characterizing regarding environmentalists, because he's pro-space.

Maybe you've had better luck in the circles you move in, but so many of the
environmentalists I've encountered are part of a bigger philosophical
movement and the environment isn't really at the top of their agenda though
it is the overt symbol of what binds them.

There's something beyond environmental concerns that draws these people into
their social circles. The one's I've sparred with get boxed into a logical
corner when confronted with some environmental solution that still leaves
their "world changing paradigm" unresolved. SPS is an example of that.

Present a hypothetical, doesn't have to be SPS. Give them clean energy in
abundance, for instance, and yet they're still opposed to 'materialism' and
still favor energy conservation, wind power, bicycling, etc.

I'm all in favor of environmental protections, clean air, not raping the
land and the sea for their resources, and thus consider myself attracted to
an environmental message yet I have absolutely nothing in common in my other
views with people who label themselves environmentalists.

Maybe the term 'environmentalist' is too broad. Maybe the term I should be
using for that subset that I'm characterizing in my post, is gaians. Make of
it what you will.

TangoMan

ENVIRONMENTALIST HYPOCRISY TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENT

Solar Power Satellites are built from orbital resources and thus any mining
and fabricating have absolutely no impact on the Earth's ecology.

To calculate the environmental impact created from the construction of SPS
we'd need to determine how many orbital launches will be required to
establish the mining and refining infrastructure in orbit. Once that is
complete then only a fraction of each SPS will have to be launched from
Earth.

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

On 23 Nov 2003 05:16:12 -0800, (Gary Heidenreich)
wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon? If from the
moon, why not use them where they are found?

Asteroid resources have a lower energy cost to obtain and use, but
take longer to reach the mining/refining/construction sites.

Lunar-based solar power is plagued by the same restrictions as
terrestrial solar power. Namely, the sun shines on a given area for
only a certain amount of time. On earth, the amount of time varies
from a 50/50 split of daylight/night, to a few hours of daylight...
the moons' cycle is 2 weeks of light, and two weeks of darkness.
Unless you build your collectors at the poles, you're not going to get
any benefit. This could be done... but as power demand increases, and
you add more collector area to the site, you're *eventually* going to
reach a point where the new collectors you install are going to be
only partially illuminated.

Then there's the question of aiming the power beams. The earth
rotates faster than the moon orbits, so you can't aim your
transmission beam at a fixed point on the earth. In order to get the
power from the moon to the earth, you'd need a series of relay
satellites in GSO, to transfer the beam to your rectenna site. Why
not just collect the solar energy in GSO, and beam it down directly?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:29:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, Larry
Gales made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I have partially read your article (and saved it for future reference) and
it appears to reference a lot of very useful data on solar and wind power
as well as SPS. What bothers me is the assumption that environmentalists
are anti-space, anti-technology, and anti-SPS. I have a very strong
interest in space, and an equally strong interest in environmental issues
and do not find them in serious conflict. I don't know is SPS will turn
out to be a useful form of energy but I support the research that would
help us determine if it would be the case.

It depends on what kind of environmentalist you are. If you're an
environmentalist who hates humanity and technology (who tend to be
"watermelons"--green on the outside and red on the inside), then
you'll be opposed to any massive clean sources of energy.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental
drawbacks. Many of the worlds largest citites are not that far from
suitable sites. The UK government is aiming to have several GW of
capacity by 2010.

However, in the bigger scheme of things, it's not enough. Currently,
the US, with 4% of theb population, consumes over 25% of the energy.
If all people tend towards US consumption levels over the next 100
years, that would imply a six fold increase in energy consumption. For
those levels, I think SSP is the only long term option.

On 23 Nov 2003 10:27:22 -0800, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental

But that still doesn't address the irregularity of wind power... or
do you know of an offshore site where the wind blows at a constant
rate, 24/7...? ;-)

Thanks for this post. I've just recently joined the Sierra Club, and
was surprised to read that a recent cartoon in Sierra magazine mocked
the idea of space solar power -- but pleased to see that a member wrote
a letter to the editor in its defense (and this letter was printed).

I appreciate the amount of research you've put into your arguments, and
the use of actual numbers which anyone can double-check.

I would urge you to join major environmental groups, like the Sierra
club. I believe that this group as a whole has its heart in the right
place, though certainly there are the closed-minded anti-modernists like
you describe. But those will only be overcome by outnumbering them, and
patiently, patiently explaining things over the course of many years.

A few suggestions for you, to increase your impact. First, double-check
your spelling and grammar; I noticed abuses of "it's" vs. "its" and
"affect" vs. "effect" which gives an attacker easy ammunition if they
would stoop to questioning your educational level. Second, post with
your real name. Nobody's going to listen to someone using a handle;
that's generally done only by kids or people with something to hide.

I hope that somebody will soon write a detailed article on SSP for
Sierra magazine. I'm not qualified to do it myself, but I'd certainly
love to see it!

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
(Gary Heidenreich) wrote:

Where do the orbital resources come from if not the moon?

Well, NEAs. But I agree that the Moon is more likely.

If from the moon, why not use them where they are found?

I see that proposal discussed now and then, but I don't see how it makes
as much sense. The Moon is not at fixed position in the sky, nor does
any point on it receive continuous sunlight, or sunlight from a fixed
direction. All of those problems are avoided (almost completely) by a
satellite in GEO. And it doesn't strike me as substantially harder to
build it there than to build it on the lunar surface.

A detailed reference that compares all forms of terrestial and space
power (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, etc. and SPS,
and LSP (lunar solar power) can be found in the book "Innovative
energy solutions to CO2 Stabilization," 2002, Ch 9 pp 345-410 by D.R.
Criswell

Thank you for the reference, I'll add that to my list. ...Er, I'm
embarassed to say that I can't find this. Would you have an ISBN number?

I would like to see an independent peer review of the technical and
cost extimates from this research, which is the result of twenty-five
years of effort. I am thinking of a ~$5-$10 million 1-2 year study.

Well I certainly would love to see that too.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'